Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: patlin

“I see you are reading challenged. I’ll give you a 2nd chance read what I actually wrote.”

Here is what you posted (annoyingly unnecessary caps included):

“BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO BABIES BORN TO ALIEN PARENTS in the USA, REGARDLESS OF THE PARENTS LEGAL STATUS, IS CITIZENHIP BY FIAT & NOT BY NATURE DUE TO JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, NOT ACTUAL LAW RATIFIED BY WE THE PEOPLE!”

Since the prevailing interpretation of the 14th amendment’s standards regarding the children of aliens born in the U.S. is, in my opinion, self-evidently accurate, I could only assume you were implying that the entire 14th amendment was somehow a judicial invention.

“By what form of law did the founders have the authority in which to revolt against England and break all ties with them?”

Well, the sources they cited in the Declaration of Independence might illuminate us. The law of nature and nature’s God. The traditional rights of Englishmen. The prerogatives of colonial self-administration. There are also indications that they weren’t afforded the usual protections of international law. Probably others.

“And FYI...no one is a citizen of the United States unless he is 1st a citizen of one of the 50 states”

Not true. Have you never heard of federal territory? Barry Goldwater, for instance, was born in Arizona before Arizona was a state. Therefore, he was not a born citizen of any state.

“or in the case of the ratification of the Constitution, one of the 13 states”

That is true, since there was a lag between when people stopped being British subjects and when the Constitution was ratified. i’m not sure how it applies to what we’re discussing.

“Geesh, my 10 yr old granddaughter even knows that one.”

Good for her.

“We’re a bottom up Federal Union, not a top down Federal Union.”

Irrelevant.

“Our Constitution was not written for an all sovereign & powerful central government much to you disliking.”

What? Neither side of this debate denies it’s the federal constitution that controls who gets to be president. Desiring a powerful central government is neither here nor there.


274 posted on 11/12/2010 8:50:37 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies ]


To: Tublecane
Have you never heard of federal territory?

Federal territory? You mean to tell me that the Federal government owns all the land? All our local & state governments are now mere entities of the Federal government?

Well, the sources they cited in the Declaration of Independence might illuminate us. The law of nature and nature’s God. The traditional rights of Englishmen. The prerogatives of colonial self-administration. There are also indications that they weren’t afforded the usual protections of international law. Probably others.

Oh my, “indications & probability” is what you finally rely on? You really are on a stretch there now aren't you? You mean to tell me that after the Declaration the founders still deemed themselves Englishmen? Please give a cite for that as well as the indications you speak of that they weren't afforded the usual protections of international law since foreign nations came to the aid of the US both militarily & monetarily under the rights afforded to the US according to the Law of Nations.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

NOPE! No Englishmen there & no indications or probability either, but lots of Nature, Nature's God as well as the founder's Creator. "Liberty": the right to remove themselves & their families from one society and attach to another in their pursuit of their's & their family's happiness. It's called Expatriation & it is the sister Act to the 14th Amendment. It states that the US does NOT & NEVER has recognized dual allegiance.

And in case you have trouble understanding the Law of Nature & Nature's God, here's a lesson from a most notable Englishman that was published in 1708 & a common book in American households as well as libraries in America prior to the revolution.

Expatriation Act of July 27, 1868

civil right act 1870 reenactment of 1866 act

Locke temp_local obedience A

Locke temp_local obedience B

Locke temp_local obedience C

299 posted on 11/12/2010 9:29:39 PM PST by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson